More_Badass
Member
This is awesome news!
I can only imagine some of the comments right now on certain parts of the Internet...
I can only imagine some of the comments right now on certain parts of the Internet...
Those aren't "receipts" for Anita and/or Zoe supposedly mounting an online harassment campaign.
One of your articles even specifies that the apology was unsolicited.
I feel for what these women went/going through. However, what can be done that don't greatly prohibit free speech on the internet? How will it be regulated? Do we really want "Big Brother" deciding what we can or can't say online? I get that people are a-holes online, but that's what the block/mute button is for.
This over aggressive attitude is how they lose a lot of people who would likely support their cause as well. It's really sad.
This over aggressive attitude is how they lose a lot of people who would likely support their cause as well. It's really sad.
Just mentally picturing your comment the other way around, that's all.
At least offer some actual example rather than a pointless statement without any support.
How about not someone who decided to attack and then start a huge online harassment attack against the person who managed to land a probe on a meteorite all because of what he was wearing the day the landing occurred?
I think that would be a good place to start.
Just mentally picturing your comment the other way around, that's all.
Interesting, wonder how it's going to turn out. Who's this Zoe Quinn person though?
Just mentally picturing your comment the other way around, that's all.
Heh, the irony is obvious if you take that last sentence in a vacuum, but if you include the context of what I actually posted that doesn't work at all.
If I made him feel bad for considering the context of whataboutism in a broader sense that includes #alllivesmatter, I feel 100% OK about that.
Interesting, wonder how it's going to turn out. Who's this Zoe Quinn person though?
I wouldn't mind seeing criminal punishment for doing terrible things online.Anonymity has barely been a problem since Facebook. The Greater Internet Fuckwad Theory is disproven. People happily do this under their real names, with picture attached.
Fair enough. At this point more people are jumping on me than him, so I'm clearly in the wrong in the context of GAF.
I find whataboutism to be a sickening cancer on discourse so pardon my hyperbole.
Sarkeesian and Quinn are one thing, but Harper and Eveleth speaking about Online Harrassment falls in the same category as Saudi Arabia being appointed the head country for the UN's Human Rights panel.
Nonsense retort. Cyber-bullying isn't my area of expertise, so why would I know who the experts are? However I don't need to name drop a leader in the field to know there are academics with a primary interest in it who have done research with more than one data point. A Web of Knowledge search of "cyber bullying" and "female" turns up 49 results with the top ten papers being cited over (combined) 600 times (there's certainly some overlap).
AS and ZQ offer the "personal account" with a bit of "celebrity" thrown in. That's great. However you wouldn't only invite a Katrina victim to speak at a Climate Change summit as your "proof" of it's existence.
if your (not literally you, MisterR, the colloquial you) support of ending online harassment of women honestly hinges upon whether or not you were treated well when posting alllivesmatter bullshit, then your support wasn't very strong to begin with, and you probably don't really give a shit either way.
where did animlboogy send death threats to that users family in that post? i'm not seeing it
I wouldn't mind seeing criminal punishment for doing terrible things online.
My theory is people do it because they know they won't get in trouble even using real names/pictures.
I know women and girls are getting the worst of it, and I'm all for this
I wouldn't mind seeing criminal punishment for doing terrible things online.
My theory is people do it because they know they won't get in trouble even using real names/pictures.
Nonsense retort. Cyber-bullying isn't my area of expertise, so why would I know who the experts are?
Already addressed but there are academics who probably have binders full of women to lend their "voice" to this issue; women who do not have the advantage of celebrity.
It's just that I think at times the aggressive attacks on these posters, who may well just be shit posting, may discourage people who may have real questions about issues or maybe are ignorant to some stuff, but who could be enlightened in some way. I understand the anger if a bunch of juniors are just popping in with drive by shit posts.
Okay, question.
I know online harassment is a thing, I've experienced my own share of it over the years for one thing or another, (not Anita Sarkeesian levels of harassment, but still.) Regardless, is there really any point in talking to the UN about it, or this another one of those "Feels good," kind of things? I mean, It's not as if the UN actually has any power over human behavior, in any way shape or form.
It's just that I think at times the aggressive attacks on these posters, who may well just be shit posting, may discourage people who may have real questions about issues or maybe are ignorant to some stuff, but who could be enlightened in some way. I understand the anger if a bunch of juniors are just popping in with drive by shit posts.
Okay, question.
I know online harassment is a thing, I've experienced my own share of it over the years for one thing or another, (not Anita Sarkeesian levels of harassment, but still.) Regardless, is there really any point in talking to the UN about it, or this another one of those "Feels good," kind of things? I mean, It's not as if the UN actually has any power over human behavior, in any way shape or form.
Is there something about Harper I don't know about besides the blocklist?
Okay, question.
I know online harassment is a thing, I've experienced my own share of it over the years for one thing or another, (not Anita Sarkeesian levels of harassment, but still.) Regardless, is there really any point in talking to the UN about it, or this another one of those "Feels good," kind of things? I mean, It's not as if the UN actually has any power over human behavior, in any way shape or form.
Okay, question.
I know online harassment is a thing, I've experienced my own share of it over the years for one thing or another, (not Anita Sarkeesian levels of harassment, but still.) Regardless, is there really any point in talking to the UN about it, or this another one of those "Feels good," kind of things? I mean, It's not as if the UN actually has any power over human behavior, in any way shape or form.
Heh, the irony is obvious if you take that last sentence in a vacuum, but if you include the context of what I actually posted that doesn't work at all.
Insults, no.Define terrible things? Insults? i think this is too far, considering even the media does it.
I can see this, you can do mental gymnastics to convince yourself that the person you are talking to is not human.There is also this belief that what happens online doesn't have any affect on people offline. Like people don't think that the abuse won't affect others mentally.
space scientist apologizes for sexist shirt
Rosetta scientist breaks down during apology live
I think the original tweet is gone by now thought
Those aren't "receipts" for Anita and/or Zoe supposedly mounting an online harassment campaign.
One of your articles even specifies that the apology was unsolicited.
Insults, no.
Threats of rape, death, and harming others? Yes, IRL it is harassment.
Pretty much if you can't do it in public, you can't do it online.
I can see this, you can do mental gymnastics to convince yourself that the person you are talking to is not human.
I know that you're giving a generalization, but this is not accurate. There are so many people in academic social science (or industry, but publishing in academic journals or at academic conferences) who use ethnographic, contextual inquiry, interview, participatory action research and other qualitative methods that are specifically about looking at specific individuals, or to effect change. Saying that "Academic social science uses broad strokes" is ignoring a huge number of studies, including several that have looked at individual-level experiences quite related to this topic, like reputation management and privacy/security strategies. Some social scientists try to remove all bias from their studies. Others acknowledge and embrace their bias as a way to effect change, such as in power structures between disadvantaged and majority groups by including members of a group they study on the research team. These are all academic social science.If you willing choose to ignore the first few sentences I wrote that is YOUR problem not mine. In any case, you are still wrong.
I would love to see these imaginary schools that focuses entirely on individual experiences, because that would make for some poor learning. You can learn from individual experiences but academic knowledge is no substitute for real world experience. Academic knowledge by definition is impersonal, it has to be to be applicable to the general population.
Since you love focusing on the Tl;dr
tl;dr
You are still less correct.
Academic social science uses board strokes. It is by design impersonal. You cannot properly analyse a culture by looking at specific individuals, you look at things that are common within that specific culture. In any case, people currently experiencing harassment are more important because they show the individual impact of harassment. Most academics do not get to experience that.
you admit to not knowing what you're talking about
claim that there are highly sited experts who you've obviously never heard of before and don't actually know anything about
and then assert matter of factly that they'd be better than AS and ZQ.
so don't be offended when you get accused of having a personal dislike for these women which drives you to grasp at any sort of rational for excluding them.
Well... because you implied you did:
Oh, wait. You said 'probably'. So yeah, you're basically admitting your initial response was just nonsensical with no foundation. Thanks for the valueless input, I suppose?
I do actually agree, I think if we want someone to discuss online harassment from both a personal experience and as well with an educated view Anita is a pretty good person to go with and we know she can publicly speak and well. I'm not so sure about Zoe Quinn but if she goes to say her piece I wish her all the best the same as Anita.Yeah, I used one of those guys earlier as an example of how punishment tends to be given out sparingly even when law enforcement does bother to get involved.
I think the context here is to hear from women on a series of topics at the UN though, and this happens to be one of them. And they certainly deserve the mouthpiece after the year they had.
Online harassment is a problem for everybody, but for women right now it is a flaming beacon of a dumpster fire. Of any group to hear from on the topic, I think these women have the most visible and recent stories to tell about being targeted by the largest numbers of aggressors at once.
Actually...no.
I don't agree with much of their stuff.... but the online harassment is just ridiculous and needs to stop.
Talking to the UN about this as a huge women's issue on the same week they are dealing with the absolutely horrible atrocities happening to women in Africa and the middle east, kind of makes me think his would pretty low on the UN priority list. Get the hundereds of school girls that were taken and sold as wives to terrorist back... then we can start addressing your twitter account.
If you willing choose to ignore the first few sentences I wrote that is YOUR problem not mine. In any case, you are still wrong.
I would love to see these imaginary schools that focuses entirely on individual experiences, because that would make for some poor learning. You can learn from individual experiences but academic knowledge is no substitute for real world experience. Academic knowledge by definition is impersonal, it has to be to be applicable to the general population.
Since you love focusing on the Tl;dr
tl;dr
You are still less correct.
Academic social science uses board strokes. It is by design impersonal. You cannot properly analyse a culture by looking at specific individuals, you look at things that are common within that specific culture. In any case, people currently experiencing harassment are more important because they show the individual impact of harassment. Most academics do not get to experience that.
I'm sorry, but that's not a plausible solution. Anonymity is the building block of the Internet and enforcing such rules would be borderline impossible, being able to properly regulate and verify the data of such a huge number of accounts wouldn't work, and the public would be instantly up in arms. Remember ACTA?The end to anonymity for starters. Anonymity on the public level is still fine but somehow limiting sockpuppet accounts and somehow making it easier to trace someone's online movements once investigations begin is a start. Holding twitter accountable if they refuse to cooperate (since they handwave a lot of harassment away) is another. Tightening their registration process and adding more means for controlling incoming or outgoing or visible messages is another.
Jesus christ those tweet replies.
The complete lacking of self awareness in some people is really quite impressive.
I don't agree with much of their stuff.... but the online harassment is just ridiculous and needs to stop.
Talking to the UN about this as a huge women's issue on the same week they are dealing with the absolutely horrible atrocities happening to women in Africa and the middle east, kind of makes me think his would pretty low on the UN priority list. Get the hundereds of school girls that were taken and sold as wives to terrorist back... then we can start addressing your twitter account.